Fw 190F-8/U1

[R 105]

 I personally can't find a use for the 190F-8. the fighter comparison chart shows the F-8 with about equal performance to the A-8 but I do not find that to be the case. The 190F-8 is a horrible dog fighter and does not Carrie as good an arms package as the A-5 and A-8. I don't see how adding a bomb set up it never had would help this plane or the game.

[Butcher]

I personally can't find a use for the 190F-8. the fighter comparison chart shows the F-8 with about equal performance to the A-8 but I do not find that to be the case. The 190F-8 is a horrible dog fighter and does not Carrie as good an arms package as the A-5 and A-8. I don't see how adding a bomb set up it never had would help this plane or the game.

It would really be used for Scenarios as a Jabo - this is pretty much the only reason to add the 190F/G - as a Tank buster its pretty much worthless, I had a few victories with it but nothing more then half what I can get in an Il-2 or HurriD. As a Fighter I see no reason, the A5 would school it in every which way.
As a dive bomber, why fly with one 500kg bomb when a p51D can load two 1000lb bombs.

[Lusche]

It would really be used for Scenarios as a Jabo - this is pretty much the only reason to add the 190F/G - as a Tank buster its pretty much worthless, I had a few victories with it but nothing more then half what I can get in an Il-2 or HurriD.

This remark made me look up the 190F's kills vs vehicles in comparison to the Hurricane D, which commonly is not being called  "worthless vs tanks" these days.
The numbers for 2011 are as follows:




If we take a closer look at the tank kill numbers, we will see that the 190F has a higher percentage of kills vs typically "defensive" tanks, that are much more being used on home turf than tanks like M4(75) or Panzer IV, which are common town attackers. This indicates that while both planes have about the same number of GV kills, the Hurricane is the defensive GV hunter while the 190F is the offensive one.

But the 190 obiously not more of a hangar queen than the Hurricane IID.

[Karnak]

Fw190F-8 carries the only air-to-ground rockets that can kill a Tiger II.

[R 105]

 I will give the F-8 another try against GVs as lone as there are no fighters in the area lol. But I think I will go off line and do some practice with its rockets first. Lusche, thank you for posting the stats for the FW-190F-8 as a tank buster.

[Tank-Ace]

I wonder though, what percentage of those kills were gained by just salvoing off half the rockets in one go, or just dropping the 1k bomb on someone's head?

[Lusche]

I wonder though, what percentage of those kills were gained by just salvoing off half the rockets in one go, or just dropping the 1k bomb on someone's head?

The majority, becasue that are the proper weapons and tactics for that job. Or do we expect the 190F to kill tanks with it's machineguns? 

[Tank-Ace]

The majority, becasue that are the proper weapons and tactics for that job. Or do we expect the 190F to kill tanks with it's machineguns?

You missed the point I was trying to make. I can easily see people using the 190F as the primary offensive attacker (out of the dedicated attacker aircraft) because it offers the shortest transit times, and the greatest number of options for engagement and egress. The number of people that simply salvo of half of their rockets at one tank, or miss with all the rockets and drop the bomb, and motor for home would give us an indication of why they're using the 190F8; do they find its weapons more effective when on the offensive (due to the higher number of heavily-armored defensive tanks, and because of its ablity to quickly knock out enemy tanks), or are they simply using it because the IID, Il-2, and B-25H are too slow for them.


In addition to this, we would also get an indication of precisely why its killing more heavy units; is it a combination of higher probablity of encounter and heavier armament, which would indicate that its less because of the effectivness of the F8, and more because it simply has a greater chance to kill these heavies. Or is it being hauled out specificly because of the higher chance of encountering tanks like the Tiger II. Put simply, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[Lusche]

You missed the point I was trying to make.

I have to admit - I still do.

[Tank-Ace]

I'm saying that its possible the 190F8 is being used offensivly not because its weapons better suit it to offensive action, but that its speed (and better manuverablity compared to the Il-2 and 25H) simply make it more survivable when operating in a higher-risk enviornment.


How its being employed (at least semi-efficiently, or in a completly noobish and unskilled manner) will give us some indication of which it is. If most of the kills are gained by either salvoing off half or more of the rockets onto a single target (and possibly missing with the first salvo), or with the bomb after all the rockets missed, then this would tell us that most people are having difficulties with the weapons, and that a not inconsiderable precentage of its kills can be attributed to simple greater chance of encounter.


Also, are there higher numbers of skilled individuals to which a relatively high percentage of the kills can be attributed to when compared to the Il-2. Even better than its typical means of employment, this will tell us if the 190F8's value as a tank-buster really is equal to that of the Il-2 or IID for the average player.

[Karnak]

Killing tanks with bombs and rockets is "noobish"?

Those are the tools the Fw190F-8 has to work with.

Or are you suggesting that because people can't kill one tank per rocket they are "noobish"?

The Il-2 is better for killing Panzer IVs and such, but for the tough tanks the Fw190F-8 packs more punch.

[Tank-Ace]

Killing tanks with bombs and rockets is "noobish"?

Those are the tools the Fw190F-8 has to work with.

Or are you suggesting that because people can't kill one tank per rocket they are "noobish"?

The Il-2 is better for killing Panzer IVs and such, but for the tough tanks the Fw190F-8 packs more punch.

No, I'm suggesting that just setting the salvo to 6+ rockets, and adjusting the delay for a 'shotgun' effect is noobish, or at the very least it is a method for the unskilled. Before I left, I was to where I could achieve kills with a 3 rocket salvo per tank.

Whats even worse is when they savlo off 6 at a time, miss with both salvos, and then use the bomb as a last resort weapon.

[Karnak]

Firing all the rockets in one salvo is historically accurate, at least for Typhoons.

Who cares if they fire all ten rockets at once.

[Lusche]

No, I'm suggesting that just setting the salvo to 6+ rockets, and adjusting the delay for a 'shotgun' effect is noobish, or at the very least it is a method for the unskilled.

This is the exact historical method for the Panzerblitz rocket as it was not prcision weapon. In fact, it's somewhat 'gamey' that we are able to shoot them one by one.

[Tank-Ace]

Firing all the rockets in one salvo is historically accurate, at least for Typhoons.

Who cares if they fire all ten rockets at once.

It shows that they are unable to get kills on a regular basis with less rockets. This indicates they are having some difficulties with the rockets, which might mean that its kills are just due to a higher likelyhood of encounter.


And Lusche, IIRC, they fired salvos of 4 rockets off. Might be wrong though.